Constitutional Convention — COMPROMISE on Page 11

Off-topic posts go in here; this forum is only loosely moderated.

Constitutional Convention — COMPROMISE on Page 11

Unread postby FirePhantom » 20th November, 2013, 10:07 pm

The rules and procedures governing this site and guiding its mod team are long overdue for an overhaul.

For instance, I think you'll all agree that it’s a bit silly that the first rule is against something that can (and will be, eventually) prevented transparently by modification to the forum software, especially considering there are much more important rules further down the list.

When all is said and done, we want a new set of rules that is just as concise and simple as the current one, but better suited to the needs and concerns of the current community and demographic.

Please suggest and discuss alterations to the current rules or completely new ones below.


Note that the ultimate decisions rest with René and myself in consultation with the current mod team. This is not a democracy; just because a suggestion is popular doesn’t mean we’ll implement it, and if we feel something is ultimately best for the forum we will implement it regardless of its popularity.



Announcement, 18 December:

The Grand Council of Old Ones (i.e., mods and former mods with Super-Secret Staff Chat access) has determined that GTF is in need of an age limit.

Due to the nature of this forum — primarily a place for teenagers 13- through 19-years-old (but always and forever also welcoming to young adults, within reason) — it is untenable for the status quo of completely open access for all ages to be maintained.

We'd like input on what that age limit should be, and how it should work.

Personally and from my own experience, I don't think anyone older than my last-year 21-year-old self should be lurking around a community with members as young as 13.

Some other numbers tossed around include 22 and 25. The former as an absolute cutoff was widely-agreed as a good compromise amongst the mod team, with 21 being a 'grace year' period.

Please note: it has already been decided that there will be an age limit for GTF. That point is non-negotiable and has been agreed-upon by myself and René in conjunction with the present moderating team (indeed, it was originally suggested by one of the mods, who convinced me several months ago).

Again, please keep the discussion civil and free of vitriol.



Compromise, 20 December:

I have, I think, what amounts to a good compromise:

  • The absolute cut-off age limit will be 25. On your 25th birthday as registered, your account will be blocked from accessing chat, prevented from making posts, and barred from new threads created in the self-pics forum. And, if it's doable, prevented from writing new PMs (but will be able to reply to PMs).
  • The maximum age for new members will be 19. If while registering you enter a birthday that pegs you 20+, your IP address will be banned and you will be welcomingly shown the way to GayForum.org.
  • Members known to be 25 and older who have not set their correct birthday will be banned, not merely limited as per above. Members known to be 25 and older who are found to be accessing the site through a secondary account will have both accounts banned.
  • Moderators in good standing and admins who turn 25 will be allowed to remain in their positions, but will be expected to go into self-exile as far as non-official public interaction is concerned.
  • These rules will go into nominal effect on the 1st of January, 2014. The actual implementation will follow within the next few months. If you are known to be 25 or older, you will be kindly asked to go into self-exile.
User avatar
FirePhantom
Valar Dohaeris
 
First name: Brenden
Posts: 17115
Likes received: 49
Joined: 12th March, 2009, 12:26 am
Location: Berneslai, Jórvíkshire
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Remeber-me » 20th November, 2013, 10:10 pm

I think that there should be a ban on ethnicist hate speech, excluding me of course. But for real, the forum is great just the way it is.
User avatar
Remeber-me
*Remember
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: 7th March, 2012, 5:47 pm

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby FirePhantom » 20th November, 2013, 10:14 pm

Remeber-me wrote:I think that there should be a ban on ethnicist hate speech [...]

A rule regarding hate speech is definitely a possibility, but it would be very narrowly-defined.

Our guiding principle regarding speech will always be:
Justice Louis D. Brandeis wrote:If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.
Image

Where do you stack up amongst GTFers? Tell how tall you are here! Stand tall and tower over all? Or compare and despair?
User avatar
FirePhantom
Valar Dohaeris
 
First name: Brenden
Posts: 17115
Likes received: 49
Joined: 12th March, 2009, 12:26 am
Location: Berneslai, Jórvíkshire
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Glam » 20th November, 2013, 10:33 pm

I strongly disagree with rule #4 when it says "excessive post-whoring counts as spam". I have my motives I swear, even if they are completely indecipherable.
If you knew me and want to keep in touch, follow me on Twitter/Instagram @er_odriguez
User avatar
Glam
Lana dull Cliché
 
Posts: 18024
Joined: 13th August, 2010, 3:55 am
Country: Venezuela (ve)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Circles » 20th November, 2013, 10:39 pm

Glam wrote:I strongly disagree with rule #4 when it says "excessive post-whoring counts as spam". I have my motives I swear, even if they are completely indecipherable.

I think it would be referring more to like single word posts spewed all over. At least that's how I've been interpreting it.
ImageImageImageImageoooo
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
Image
User avatar
Circles
Twinkerbell
 
First name: Marshall
Posts: 4088
Likes received: 55
Joined: 3rd March, 2013, 5:32 pm
Location: Minnesota.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Circles » 20th November, 2013, 11:19 pm

I'll attempt to keep it brief. Is there a way to write a rule so that things like this quote below would be bannable? Without the rule being overly broad of course...


vincentpallas66 wrote:I'll just say that, being a new member for the past month, most of the people I have come in contact with on the GTF site has now made me hold the possible belief that what Putin is doing to the gay community to be correct, while maybe not legal, but overall tolerable and a little helpful to the rest of society.

I mean, who wants to be surrounded by a bunch of self-entitled, conceited, ignorant little shits who just whine, complain and blahblahblah all damn day? Seriously. Gay men are worst than women.


(Of course I do not believe what Putin is doing to be alright in ANY way; I'm just saying that most of you GTFers are obnoxious. And I wish that this site wasn't like the mob: Once you're IN, you're IN! Because I would have left a long time ago given the level of inconsiderate and all around cunty behavior)
ImageImageImageImageoooo
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
Image
User avatar
Circles
Twinkerbell
 
First name: Marshall
Posts: 4088
Likes received: 55
Joined: 3rd March, 2013, 5:32 pm
Location: Minnesota.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Will » 21st November, 2013, 12:01 am

I propose one rule: everything comes down to the staff's discretion. I'll think about it.
User avatar
Will
"It cannot be fixed now."
 
Posts: 5711
Joined: 25th February, 2012, 4:31 am
Location: Clockwork City

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 21st November, 2013, 12:05 am

Rule: Multiple animated gifs outside pics threads count as spam.

And I think future ID subforum access should only be given to people who have 50 posts or more, have read the subforum's guidelines and have to submit only their first draft to a moderator for editing and counseling, so they know what's the minimum expectation for a contribution instead of "hurrr wat do yall think of guns. der bad huh, lol" and having to wasteland it every time.

Oh and there should still be room for roughhousing.

Remeber-me wrote:I think that there should be a ban on ethnicist hate speech

And do away with our time-honored tradition of saying nigger and making watermelon jokes? Perish the thought!
Image
User avatar
poolerboy0077
Professor of Twink Studies, UCLA
 
Posts: 24113
Likes received: 1
Joined: 21st December, 2007, 2:20 am
Country: United States (us)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby The Hierophant » 21st November, 2013, 12:33 am

poolerboy0077 wrote:Rule: Multiple animated gifs outside pics threads count as spam.

And I think future ID subforum access should only be given to people who have 50 posts or more, have read the subforum's guidelines and have to submit only their first draft to a moderator for editing and counseling, so they know what's the minimum expectation for a contribution instead of "hurrr wat do yall think of guns. der bad huh, lol" and having to wasteland it every time.

Oh and there should still be room for roughhousing.

Remeber-me wrote:I think that there should be a ban on ethnicist hate speech

And do away with our time-honored tradition of saying nigger and making watermelon jokes? Perish the thought!

An excellent suggestion.
Image
To avoid unnecessary thread derailment, please direct your complaints to the following links: Public | Private
User avatar
The Hierophant
MOUTAI
 
Posts: 7772
Joined: 13th September, 2009, 12:57 am
Location: Surrey
Country: Canada (ca)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Simon » 21st November, 2013, 2:21 am

I would third the ID suggestion.
User avatar
Simon
Super Pooper!
 
Posts: 13303
Joined: 11th November, 2009, 3:26 am

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 21st November, 2013, 2:39 am

Simon wrote:I would third the ID suggestion.

:awesome: :heart:
Image
User avatar
poolerboy0077
Professor of Twink Studies, UCLA
 
Posts: 24113
Likes received: 1
Joined: 21st December, 2007, 2:20 am
Country: United States (us)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Burns » 21st November, 2013, 2:58 am

There should be a warning to prepubescents posting practically naked pictures. I think it's a little creepy for it to be on the site in the first place, and the kids who do it are probably going to regret it later. I say the mods put up a disclaimer or warning in the rules or something. It's for the kids, man!
look out, the world's destroying you
User avatar
Burns
stay weird
 
Posts: 4641
Likes received: 16
Joined: 1st May, 2011, 8:36 pm
Location: Seattle with a side of San Fran
Country: United States (us)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Demo » 21st November, 2013, 2:59 am

I'm going to be controversial.
To get access to the self-pic threads one needs to be established.
GTF needs a maximum age, just like GFO has a minimum age. It's time for some people to simply learn to move on.
Excessive GIF (or pictures with silly captions) spamming is a bannable offense.
Demo
You turn if you want to, this faggot isn't for turning.
 
First name: Georgette
Posts: 7541
Likes received: 15
Joined: 22nd December, 2010, 1:35 am
Location: London
Country: United Kingdom (gb)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby poolerboy0077 » 21st November, 2013, 3:04 am

Demo wrote:GTF needs a maximum age, just like GFO has a minimum age. It's time for some people to simply learn to move on.

My foot's about to move on to yo ass, homie.
Image
User avatar
poolerboy0077
Professor of Twink Studies, UCLA
 
Posts: 24113
Likes received: 1
Joined: 21st December, 2007, 2:20 am
Country: United States (us)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Circles » 21st November, 2013, 3:09 am

Demo wrote:GTF needs a maximum age, just like GFO has a minimum age. It's time for some people to simply learn to move on.

Perhaps an age limit for new members, but to tell older members to get out? No.
ImageImageImageImageoooo
ImageImageImageImageImageImageImage
Image
User avatar
Circles
Twinkerbell
 
First name: Marshall
Posts: 4088
Likes received: 55
Joined: 3rd March, 2013, 5:32 pm
Location: Minnesota.
Country: United States (us)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Wonderland » 21st November, 2013, 3:15 am

Demo wrote:I'm going to be controversial.
To get access to the self-pic threads one needs to be established.
GTF needs a maximum age, just like GFO has a minimum age. It's time for some people to simply learn to move on.
Excessive GIF (or pictures with silly captions) spamming is a bannable offense.


I agree with the first one. Though I guess the extent of my agreement depends on what "established" entails

While there is an element of reason in that proposal (there have been a few creepers recently..), I think that it would be to the detriment of GTF to implement a maximum age. Many of the older members here provide a lot of decent advice and guidance that comes with experience. I think we'd miss that.

I think it's really hard to draw a concrete line with the whole gif thing. I think if it were to be included as a form of spamming, it needs to be clear what kind of posts are ok and what kind of posts are considered spamming. I think the level of tolerance with regards to gifs also varies. PMDT uses them quite a bit.. :dunno:
Last edited by Wonderland on 21st November, 2013, 3:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Wonderland
Lorde of the Dance
 
Posts: 9430
Joined: 9th February, 2013, 10:27 pm
Country: New Zealand (nz)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Odd » 21st November, 2013, 3:15 am

Circles wrote:
Demo wrote:GTF needs a maximum age, just like GFO has a minimum age. It's time for some people to simply learn to move on.

Perhaps an age limit for new members, but to tell older members to get out? No.

There's not really much of a point to age limits. Only to a minimum age to cover our asses legally.
User avatar
Odd
The Anti-Snorlax
 
Posts: 3492
Joined: 22nd August, 2011, 12:18 am
Location: A red room
Country: United States (us)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Stormwatcher » 21st November, 2013, 3:17 am

Odd wrote:
Circles wrote:
Demo wrote:GTF needs a maximum age, just like GFO has a minimum age. It's time for some people to simply learn to move on.

Perhaps an age limit for new members, but to tell older members to get out? No.

There's not really much of a point to age limits. Only to a minimum age to cover our asses legally.

... and a minimum age to uncover our asses legally too :cool:

(I have a few ideas, but I'm exhausted now and will revisit this more seriously in the morning)
Image

ImageImageImageImageImage

Long Live Pooler!
User avatar
Stormwatcher
Older with Meth
 
Posts: 7966
Joined: 31st January, 2012, 12:19 pm
Location: Tampa-area, FL and SF Bay-area, CA
Country: United States (us)

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Xyloto » 21st November, 2013, 3:35 am

Why don't you have a rule against being a dick? Or at least against being an egregious dick? Of course a rule like that would have to be qualified further, but yeah. Most forums do. :/
after a wank
User avatar
Xyloto
Member
 
Posts: 351
Joined: 17th August, 2012, 1:32 am

Re: Constitutional Convention — New Rules Suggestions and Discussion

Unread postby Burns » 21st November, 2013, 3:39 am

Xyloto wrote:Why don't you have a rule against being a dick? Or at least against being an egregious dick? Of course a rule like that would have to be qualified further, but yeah. Most forums do. :/


There would only be like 20 people on this site if that was a rule, but hey I'm all for it.
look out, the world's destroying you
User avatar
Burns
stay weird
 
Posts: 4641
Likes received: 16
Joined: 1st May, 2011, 8:36 pm
Location: Seattle with a side of San Fran
Country: United States (us)

Next

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Linkdex [Bot] and 9 guests